If macroevolution is incorrect, then what replaces it? (Please read OP before commenting)

[HARK!]

Since you linked to your own post and have not made a single attempt to try and address the OP, going off on tangents, then I'm calling it like I see it.

If you want to call addressing some of your nonsensical statements as going off on tangents; should we just let the nonsense stand, to stay on topic?

 

[pitabread]

Excellent! I have this theory that my garbage man found a expired can of Campbell's Primordial Stew in my neighbor's trash; and that he traveled back in time in his Delorean, to spawn all life.

Prove me wrong.

Not how the burden of proof works.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you want to call addressing some of your nonsensical statements as going off on tangents; should we just let the nonsense stand, to stay on topic?

I think that you are very much projecting here.

 

[HARK!]

Not how the burden of proof works.

I tried to explain that earlier in this thread. I thought that this example would make clear the fallacy.

 

[jacknife]

5 going on 6 pages in with no attempt to answer the OP? Sounds about par for the course.

 

[HARK!]

5 going on 6 pages in with no attempt to answer the OP? Sounds about par for the course.

I addressed this question early on in the thread. Nothing needs to replace a failed hypothesis. If we don't have an answer to our question; it's better to keep searching for an answer, rather than providing another wrong answer to replace the first.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I addressed this question early on in the thread. Nothing needs to replace a failed hypothesis. If we don't have an answer to our question; it's better to keep searching for an answer, rather than providing another wrong answer to replace the first.

You didn't say that. You made a snarky comment about the Tooth Fairy.

 

[zippy2006]

Okay, I'll give you that.
I am still right though. If you say that something is wrong, you should be expected to say that another thing is right, either a claim, an assessment or a theory.

Why does saying that something is wrong mean you have to say that something else is right? If I argue that Ptolemy's astrological system was wrong, why do I have to argue that a different astrological interpretation is right? If an atheist argues that Christianity is wrong, does he have to argue that some other religion is right?

Skeptics are annoying, but they aren't logically inconsistent.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why does saying that something is wrong mean you have to say that something else is right? If I argue that Ptolemy's astrological system was wrong, why do I have to argue that a different astrological interpretation is right? If an atheist argues that Christianity is wrong, does he have to argue that some other religion is right?

Skeptics are annoying, but they aren't logically inconsistent.

Forget it.

 

[zippy2006]

Forget it.

Right: there is no answer because your position is incorrect.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Right, there is no answer because your position is incorrect.

No, I've just realised that you're not even really going to make an attempt to even try and answer the OP so you might as well just leave the thread.

 

[zippy2006]

No, I've just realised that you're not even really going to make an attempt to even try and answer the OP so you might as well just leave the thread.

No, I have explained in excruciating detail why your OP commits a logical fallacy, and you have no answer. You are unable to admit you are wrong. You just think anyone who disagrees with you ought to leave the thread. But that's not how forums work.

 

[HARK!]

You didn't say that. You made a snarky comment about the Tooth Fairy.

You are incorrect. I was hoping that you would have deduced your fallacy by the Tooth Fairy comment. When you failed to; I provided an explanation in Post #37.

 

[jacknife]

I addressed this question early on in the thread. Nothing needs to replace a failed hypothesis. If we don't have an answer to our question; it's better to keep searching for an answer, rather than providing another wrong answer to replace the first.

Evolution is far from a hypothesis your asking to ignore all evidence found in the natural world for an idea that dosn't answer why we find all this evidence to begin with. If it was some small idea I could understand searching for more info but were talking something that spans multiple sciences and forms the back bone for one.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, I have explained in excruciating detail why your OP commits a logical fallacy, and you have no answer. You are unable to admit you are wrong. You just think anyone who disagrees with you ought to leave the thread. But that's not how forums work.

The OP was in response to a person who claim that macroevolution was wrong and has been questioned on what should replace it if it is wrong, which is a big issue since macroevolution is something of a big deal in evolutionary theory since it's the creation of species of animals. They never replied, so I made this thread in the hope that they would reply.
Clearly they haven't.

Now, I haven't committed a logical fallacy because, it is a fact in the history of science, that when a theory has been falsified and shown to be incorrect, it has been replaced. The theory of spontaneous generation being the best example off the top of my head.

All you have done is said that I'm wrong and argued semantics. You've made no attempt to answer the OP question and have just argued semantics. That's all you have done.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You are incorrect. I was hoping that you would have deduced your fallacy by the Tooth Fairy comment. When you failed to; I provided an explanation in Post #37.

No, I took it as trolling and derailing because that's all I've felt that you've tried to do in this thread. If you had just started this thread by simply going "Well, I think that nothing would replace it because I feel that nothing should replace a wrong theory", I would have asked you to explain that further, but I would have taken that as an answer.
An asinine comment about the Tooth Fairy is not an explanation. By itself, it can be seen, and was seen, as trolling.

 

[HARK!]

Evolution is far from a hypothesis your asking to ignore all evidence found in the natural world for an idea that dosn't answer why we find all this evidence to begin with. If it was some small idea I could understand searching for more info but were talking something that spans multiple sciences and forms the back bone for one.

This thread addresses, more specifically, macroevolution.

You might want to read the the thread referenced in the OP, for more information on this subject.

 

[Astrophile]

You seem to be of the understanding that dismissing a theory as false, is dependent on it being replaced.

Science isn't like the purchase of a new home being contingent of the sale of the old home.

We dismiss that which is false; and if another hypothesis comes along; we test it.

If I may say so, you seem to be making the mistake of thinking that accepting or rejecting a scientific theory is an all-or-nothing matter, i.e. that a theory is entirely correct or it is useless. However, several theories (e.g. Newton's theory of gravitation, the Bohr model of the atom, and the Rayleigh-Jeans formula for black-body radiation) have turned out to be incorrect but were still able to explain observed phenomena and to make useful predictions. In the specific case of gravitation, I still use Newton's theory for calculating orbits, because it is mathematically more tractable than general relativity.

Macroevolution is in the same position; it explains the observations and makes useful predictions, so, even if it is wrong, scientists will still make use of it unless it is replaced by a better theory.

 

[jacknife]

This thread addresses, more specifically, macroevolution.

You might want to read the the thread referenced in the OP, for more information on this subject.

I understand the OP split it up this way more for the benefit of creationists but micro and macro work with the exact same mechanism evidence for one is evidence for the other my statement stands.

 

[zippy2006]

5 going on 6 pages in with no attempt to answer the OP?

This is the assumption of the OP:

• If someone claims that the solution to a problem is incorrect, then they are obliged to offer a new solution to the problem.

That's false. Everyone knows it's false. The OP is based on a fallacy.